Houston Latemodels Sanctioned by ASA

[CommonSenseRacing]

If that is the case wouldn't make sense to have HMP, SS, CC and THR convert their local late models to the crate motor used at HMP. It would lower the cost, increase the marketability of the cars and allow all the tracks to hold special events that could provide higher car counts and maybe some great racing.

 

The USRA cars could convert to the ASA rules and get rid of the the $30,000 race engines.

 

This could be accomplished by making the changes mandatory for 07, with rules that allow the 05 cars and the crate motor cars to be competitive in 06.

 

As for the TSRS series, no disrespect intended, but having two touring late model series makes as much sense as when the IRL split with C.A.R.T., know you have two series with low car counts.

 

I believe everyone would agree that 30 cars is a full field not 18.

[lendo38]

That is what they are telling us. I think it is unfortunate. We were really looking forward to having something to count on in Houston racing and beyond. There are way too many personalities involved and all of them are trying to get their way. I agree changing the rules every year is killing the late model class. There are a bunch of good people in this class looking for something concrete that thet can spend their hard earned money supporting and participating in. The "decision makers" need to look at the big picture here. The ASA deal would have been awesome for Texas late model racing.

[lendo38]

I think that Common Sense has some...... This is a great idea that allows for much better and more competitive racing. I agree completely. If they did this, the car counts would skyrocket.

 

I think everyone could meet in the middle this way with little more investment.

[tsrsfan]

Fans, sponsors and racers would like to associate themselves with NASCAR. Why not Houston sanction as NASCAR. Fans do not even know who or what ASA is. The only thing they know is that their equipment was reposessed. I think some people have been reading too many of ASA press releases about how great they are. Did they pay $40,000 to 4 regional champions? Where are all of those $30,000 engines in USRA? Who has one?

[legacy47]

I think alot of SLM drivers are paying around $30,000 for an engine, somebody on here would know.

[Guest lidllarry]

You could probably own any USRA Super Late Model car and motor complete for thirty grand. Someone is blowing smoke here.

[CommonSenseRacing]

Okay, maybe the $30,000 was extreme, so $20,000 then, it’s still a lot more expensive than $5,000 for a crate engine. Not to mention the cost of having the motor freshen up at the end of the season, with the crate motor from what I understand you can get two seasons out of it. Also, if you’re one of those people who have to have a new motor every year, sell it for half and buy a new one. This would also help people who are looking to get into late models save some cash. All I am saying is, I believe it would be progress in the right direction. Racing is anything but cheap and anything that would bring down the cost and help level the playing field is a good thing.

 

As far as ASA or NASCAR, I was talking about the rules not the association to the sanctioning body.

[Waco Racer]

If USRA were to change to the ASA rules then they would not be able to run at TMS on the big track. The crate engines would not be able to handle that track. I believe that teams are spending close to $30,000 for engines just to run at TMS, those engines are highly specialized and there aren't many used ones for sale. Moving the USRA SLM rules to the ASA rules could possibly increase car counts at the short tracks but I believe that there is a place for the Super Late Model in local racing. Just because the average racer can't afford one doesn't mean that the rules have to be changed. Cost control is a good thing, but drastic cost reduction isn't necessary.

[fastlane]

Wow, for a second there I thought racing in Texas was about to take a real positive step in the right direction. I thought Houston was going to start a trend, well actually join in on an already popular trend and the other tracks or the local Late Model touring series was going to get on board.

 

For the last couple of weeks I have been doing much research to begin rebuilding my car. I have also spoken to a lot of local rules officials, series promoters and local chassis builders to try and get an insight on what they see for the future of stock car racing in Texas. I also have spoken to three chassis builders outside of the state of Texas. Primarily looking for a camaro stub to replace the one that was damaged in the last wreck. I seemed to get the same response from all of them. One builder is making a tubular design to replace the camaro and the other two builders are not doing any research to begin building a replacement stub. Primarily due to the fact that most touring series and local tracks (in their area) have gone to the fabricated chassis either offset or perimeter and just add either a two barrel crate motor or a four barrel SLM type motor. In fact in a fifteen minute phone conversation with one of the chassis manufacturer he said the same word several times “why”. Why do you guys still run that style of car? Why don’t you guys run similar to these other series, so you can expand your racing venues and even add to your local shows and attract more cars? I really couldn’t come up with an answer to his questions and some of the arguments that were being made actually made sense.

 

Now with the emergence of the ASA LM series here in the south, it would appear that the popularity of these types of rules packages is expanding and is now being adopted by more series and local tracks. Most of these rules have been concentrated in the North from what I have read, but the Georgia Asphalt Series and the Southern All Star Pro Late Models were running very similar rules packages. I believe that is why ASA decided to expand to the southeast.

 

It would appear to me that there has got to be something that we can do to integrate theses ASA type rules with the current late model rules already in place, with the idea to eventually move in the ASA type rules direction for the late model classes. I am not saying we should fully adopt their ideas, but it sure looks like it is working for them and I wouldn’t see why the local sanctioning bodies wouldn’t consider it.

 

I guess I would really be interested to see some of the arguments for why changing primarily to a more updated chassis design (a SLM type chassis without the remote reservoir shock) for the TSRS type cars and the other SAS late models would be a bad idea. Leave the engine rules and allow a weight break for the crate motor and a weight penalty for any car running a rack & pinion steering. With the idea to slowly phase in a more standard set of rules and give the drivers time to build or update to a new chassis design. Then I think the option would be there to attract more cars locally and possibly from other states. A big enough payout at Houston could possibly attract some entries from Alabama, Georgia or possibly Florida without a lot of rules confusion and hassle. Even some of the local SLM teams would invest in a crate motor and run with the TSRS series or the local track on an off weekend.

 

I’m sure that there will be many detractors out there who are totally against making any changes. It might be the same guy that didn’t want to go to the 10” wheel idea, b/c of the cost and then went out and bought a $25,000.00 trailer, or it might be the guy that said to keep price of shocks to a minimum and then went out and bought a $12,000.00 motor, or the guy that can’t race because his car is not ready and has no sponsors, but is on TXSZ four or five hours out of his day. The point is, instead of someone focusing on what could lead to a possible growth in racing, while enduring some growing pains. We are too busy sitting behind the computer bitching and complaining about putting forth the effort to make the change and then pissed when we pay twenty dollars to get in the stands and watch 12 cars race.

 

I’m not saying that this could solve all of the problems, but I believe it could begin the move in a good direction. I will be the first to admit that I am not a big believer in crate motors, because I think it could hurt your local engine builder, but I don’t have any problem entertaining the idea. Especially when I could sell two of my motors and buy two crate motors and have plenty of money left over. I am also aware of the time, effort and financial burden that it will take to build or buy a new car to meet these type of rules, but I do see a long term benefit and even if something should happen where I need to sell equipment, there is more demand. Not to many people outside of Texas willing to buy a stock stub 108” wheel base car. I also don’t believe that these types of cars should replace the SLM cars. I am talking about two separate series, with the ability to move into a SLM series without a lot of added cost. You would already have the chassis and all the suspension components all you would need is the motor. Makes the transition a little smoother and less expensive. Sure is easier than having to sell everything and basically start over. Once again, I’m sure there will be plenty of negatives out there, but I don’t see how some sort of rules integration between these two rule packages could be a bad idea with the idea to adopt rules similar to the ASALM rules package in the future.

[fastlane]

I think Commonsense Racer is on to something, but I think the 350hp crate motor puts us in the same dilemma. It appears that the 400hp crate motor is the popular choice to run. Actually less horsepower than most of the TSRS cars. I think right now you can still do both. Let the 400hp crates come and penalize them 50 lbs, but with the idea to transition to the 400hp in the near future. If that was the case, we would make the 3 hour drive to run a few races at Houston next year.

[CommonSenseRacing]

TMS is one race, WACO you want to base the rules on one race. If USRA had 30 cars showing up at every event, cost reduction would not be an issue, but the car counts continue to shrink and I have to believe it is cost related. Don’t you think the racing would improve if there were a uniform set of rules for all the local tracks in Texas?

[Guest lidllarry]

Hey CommonSenseRacing

The Super Late Models are Super Late Models

The Late Models are Late Models

The car count is fine in the Super Late Models

The Lates are diluted by too many different rules & series

It is a good idea to work toward a common set of rules for LM

[CommonSenseRacing]

Thanks for agreeing about the LM rules, in my opinion a good car count 25 – 35, maybe your idea of a good car count is different. What do you consider a reasonable car count?

[HORSEPOWER]

Going the ASA type of rules would be a good idea for the local tracks in the late model class or at least the option to race with a crate motor. They might have to start leaning in that direction though, because that's the trend for the future according to what is happening throughout the Midwest and Southeast.

 

I think they don't need to change the USRA SLM's to an ASA Late Model Series, but the option to run crate or sealed motors just like in the last race. The 21 car had a crate, he ran well and had a respectable finish. In another thread Pacecar had suggested adopting the CRA Super Series rules, which is a very successful series. I think they average 26-28 cars per race, I don't recall any of our Texas based SLM touring series ever having an average of 30 cars per race. Maybe the All Pro Super Series and ASA SLM Series back in the 80's and 90's. If you take a look at the other SLM touring series in the SE, their car count is no better than the USRA SLM. The only time your going to see over 30 SLM's are in the big special events. I think in the early Oktoberfast years we averaged about 33 cars, we had cars from out of state making the show, of course the purse was slightly bigger. The ASA bought the Southern All Stars Pro-Late Models and Super Late Model Series, yet they still have a schedule for the Super Late Models for 2006, with $5,000 for first place. I'm not to sure if any of the USRA SLM driver's would want to change out a motor and race with the TSRS if they were to change their own rules, look what happened to the last race at SAS. There is a lot of talent in that series, some could even race with the SLM series, but there is still a lot of lack of experience in that series. Making the transition from a Street Stock to Late Model is a big jump, a few can do it, but for most it takes time. They need to bring back a Super Street Stock-Limited Late Model type class, I think I'm getting off the subject a little, better stop.

 

http://www.asalatemodelssouth.com/?p=69

 

http://www.craracing.net/images/2005CRALat...eModelRules.pdf

[Waco Racer]

TMS is one race, WACO you want to base the rules on one race.  If USRA had 30 cars showing up at every event, cost reduction would not be an issue, but the car counts continue to shrink and I have to believe it is cost related.  Don’t you think the racing would improve if  there were a uniform set of rules for all the local tracks in Texas?

The USRA has stated that they want to race at TMS, they want to be in that market, and that they have an agreement to race there for a couple more years. 30 cars is a tall order for any series in Texas. 20+ is a great number for any series. You can't really compare the local series counts to other touring series because they have more tracks in more states and a larger population base to draw from. Low car counts are a result of many factors, only one of them is cost. I have no problem with the local tracks having uniform Late Model rules; I believe that Nick is writing them now. I stated earlier in this thread that the ASA deal would be a good thing for Texas. That still doesn't change the fact that there is a place for Super Late Model racing. Some people just want to drive bad ass cars, but only few can really afford them.

[arts22]

TMS is one race, WACO you want to base the rules on one race. If USRA had 30 cars showing up at every event, cost reduction would not be an issue, but the car counts continue to shrink and I have to believe it is cost related. Don’t you think the racing would improve if there were a uniform set of rules for all the local tracks in Texas?

The SLM count didnt shrink throughtout this year like others did. Your not going to see 30 cars showing up without a BIG PURSE.. The ideal car count is around 20.. The lm series' needs the same rules and from what is being said, they will be. In the rules for ASA late model south division, our current LM's can run the 2006 season with them, but will have to change for 2007. With the shortage of stock front snouts we might have to change to a tube chassis anyway. It would be nice to have a car you could take anywhere and run...

[CommonSenseRacing]

You’re absolutely right, SLM’s are expensive, but I believe if you asked most people who have raced SLM’s or want to race SLM’s the number one reason for them not racing is COST. My point about the crate motors are the fast guys will still be fast, but it will tighten up the field.

 

I didn’t see the race with car 21 that had the crate motor, but if it had a reasonable finish, I think it’s safe to say that it was within a half a second on the lap times. $20,000 compared to $5,000 for a half a second a lap. WACO is $15,000 worth five tenths of a second?

[Waco Racer]

I wouldn't know. How bad do you want to win? But, hey, it's not my money to spend.

[tqj3]

To answer the question about what makes a good car count, I would suggest at least two more cars than will be allowed to start.

[CommonSenseRacing]

WACO you just made my point for me, out spending the competition to win is what’s ruining racing. Flag to flag victories are BORING, like the last SLM race at HMP.

[Waco Racer]

CSR, I have yet to disagree with any of your points. I think that there is a place for both types of cars. Please read all of my posts.

[CommonSenseRacing]

WACO, I’m with you. Regardless of minor discrepancies people may have regarding the rules, I believe everyone wants to see the car counts increase.

[Guest lidllarry]

Hey CommonSenseRacing

Go get you a $5000 crate and go getcha some

the 21 did and he ran good

SO there, there is one more car for car count

[CommonSenseRacing]

Larry,

 

All I've done is make a recommendation, on the other hand you shoot the ideas down with no rebutle and make no suggestions. I'm all ears, what would you suggest to lower costs and improve the division?

[Guest lidllarry]

I have seen a fleet of crate motor cars racing.

It is like sitting in the local pub watching the train go around and around or racing at Malibu Grand Prix.

That is some boring stuff man.